International Assistance: requests for the property until 1996

Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1996

The World Heritage Committee discussed at its nineteenth session a report presented by IUCN, which underlined the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the site. The Canadian authorities had set up the Bow Valley Task Force, in order to prepare a study on these issues. The Committee requested IUCN and the Centre to co-operate with the Canadian authorities and asked to be kept informed of the findings of the Task Force. In this context, IUCN advised the Centre that it had requested the Task Force to integrate World Heritage values in their deliberations.

The Canadian authorities informed the Centre that the report of this Task Force could be made available possibly as early as June.

Action Required

The Bureau may wish to examine the information that will be provided during the Bureau's session and provide instructions to the Centre in light of the findings of the Canadian Task Force.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1996

The World Heritage Committee discussed at its nineteenth session a report presented by IUCN, which underlined the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the site. The Canadian authorities had set up the Bow Valley Task Force, in order to prepare a study on these issues. The Committee requested IUCN and the Centre to co-operate with the Canadian authorities and asked to be kept informed of the findings of the Task Force. In this context, IUCN advised the Centre that it had requested the Task Force to integrate World Heritage values in their deliberations.

The Bureau at its session in June 1996 recommended that the Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session in November 1996 examines the report of the Task Force due in September 1996.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1996

The Bureau may wish to examine the information that will be provided during the Bureau's session and take the appropriate action thereupon.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1996

Adopted

Draft Decision

20 BUR IV.7

Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)

The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth session discussed a report presented by IUCN, which underlined the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the site. IUCN advised the Centre that it had submitted a brief to the Task Force which is due to report in September 1996.

The Bureau recommended that the Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session in November 1996 examines the Task Force report.

20 COM VII.D.30

SOC: Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)

VII.30 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)

The Committee recalled discussions held at its nineteenth session on the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the site.The Canadian authorities had set up the Bow Valley Task Force, in order to prepare a study on these issues. The Canadian provided a full report in October 1996.

In addition, IUCN provided information about the resolution at the World Conservation Congress held in Montreal, Canada in October 1996, endorsing the study's findings.

The Committee commended the Canadian authorities for providing a detailed report of the Bow Valley Task Force and for taking actions on problems being faced in this small but significant portion of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site. The Task Force Report, if implemented, would significantly shift the future management of the area in a more preservation direction. The Committee encouraged wider distribution of the lessons learnt from the Bow Valley Task Force Report.

* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).